For the recordZZZZZJJJJJJ

For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest from the
court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along that I was
not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just more
"proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info. conn has
14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and drink a
little ML. I'll post any new news.

Still putting my ducks in a row.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

IN THE GARFIELD HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COURT
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

GEORGE R. CONN, JR. Case No.: CVH0300308

Plaintiff,



CGS AVIATION, INC., MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
WITH FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendant. AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter came before the Court when Plaintiff filed an Aid in
Execution as well as a Motion to Enforce a Florida judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk. Defendant filed a motion in response to quash the debtor's
exam. Both Plaintiff and Defendant were asked by Magistrate Richard A. Kray
to brief the issue of whether or not Charles Slusarczyk should be held
personally responsible for a judgment rendered in 1984 against CGS
Aviation, Inc.

FINDINGS OF FACT
On December 12,1984 a default judgment in the amount of $2,980.05
was granted in favor of Plaintiff George Conn against Defendant CGS
Aviation, Inc. in Lake County. Florida. On February 3,2003, Plaintiff
transferred this judgment to the Garfield Heights Municipal Court and
proceeded to file an Aid in Execution and Motion to Enforce Judgment
against an officer of CGS Aviation, Inc., Charles Slusarczyk. Plaintiff, in
his brief, indicated Mr. Slusarczyk should be held personally liable
because he was a principle of the corporation and he continued, after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation, to do business as CGS
Aviation. As justification for holding Mr. Slusarczyk personally liable for
this corporate debt. Plaintiff cited two cases which interpret R.C. 1701.88
of the General Corporate Act. Both cases held that when articles of a
corporation are cancelled, the authority of the corporation to do business
ceases and after such termination, officers who carry on new business do so
as individuals and lose the protection of the corporate shield, making them
personally liable for such obligations as they occur.
Defendant, in his response brief, interpreted the cases cited by
Plaintiff to mean that an officer, once the articles of incorporation are
cancelled, loses the protection of the corporate shield if this officer
continues to do business in the corporate name and is personally
responsible for any new debt incurred. Applying this reasoning to the
instant case. Defendant took the position that since the judgment
originally entered in 1984 was against (lie Defendant's Corporation while
it was still in existence and not Mr. Slusarczyk personally, Mr. Slusarczyk
cannot be held responsible for this debt. Mr. Slusarczyk could only be held
responsible for debts incurred under the corporate name after the Articles
of Incorporation were cancelled or if Mr. Slusarczyk personally guaranteed
payment on the original debt and judgment at that time was rendered against
him in the original Complaint. Therefore, any Aid in Execution and Motion
to Enforce Judgment against Mr. Slusarczyk must fail.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CGS Aviation, Inc. was a corporation formed in Michigan in 1979. A
judgment was obtained only against CGS Aviation, Inc. on December 12,1984.
At the time this judgment was obtained, CGS Aviation, Inc. was a valid
corporation in good standing in both Michigan and Ohio. Evidence presented
by the Defendant showed the Corporation dissolved in Michigan on May 15,
1989. The issue before the Court is whether or not, based on Ohio law, a
judgment rendered against a corporate entity can be enforced against an
officer of the now defunct corporation because of Mr. Slusarczyk's active
role in operating CGS Aviation after the cancellation of the Articles of
Incorporation of CGS Aviation, Inc.
The case law which was presented in Plaintiffs brief and which
interprets R.C. Section 1701.88 is clear that officers of a dissolved
corporation can only be liable for debt incurred in the corporate name
after the date of dissolution. Chatman v. Day (Ohio App.2d 1982), 7 Ohio
App.3d 281. Additional cases cited by Plaintiff interpret R.C. Section
1701.88 in the same way and make a determination that if an officer of a
dissolved corporation continues to transact business in the corporate name,
that officer loses the protection afforded by the corporation and must be
held liable for any debt arising out of that transaction. Nabakowski v.
5400 Corp., (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1986), Allied Pipe Products. Inc. v. Petina,
1988 WL 3741 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan. 14, 1988), Unreported. These three
cases, cited by Plaintiff, held that personal liability does attach, once
the corporation was dissolved, to debts incurred by officers continuing to
use the corporate name.
In the present case, a judgment was taken against CGS Aviation,
Inc. A review of the Plaintiffs initial Complaint shows that the corporate
entity was the only Defendant listed. At no time was there any attempt to
include Mr. Slusarczyk as a party defendant. Whether or not Mr. Slusarczyk
continued doing business as CGS Aviation, Inc. or CGS Aviation after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation is irrelevant. The judgment,
which is the subject of tills case, was obtained before the Articles of
Incorporation were cancelled. Therefore, in keeping with Ohio law, as cited
above, an individual cannot be held liable for this corporate debt. Mr.
Slusarczyk can only be held liable for debts as they occur, after the
cancellation of the corporation. Whether the Defendant agreed, at a later
point in time, to work out a payment on behalf of this corporation on this
debt, does not validate the debt to be assigned to him personally. If
Plaintiff thought Mr. Slusarczyk responsible for this debt, he should have
included this individual in his original complaint against CGS Aviation,
Inc.

DECISION
Based on oral arguments and case law provided to the Court,
Defendant, Charles Slusarczyk's Motion to Quash the Aid in Execution is
granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk personally is denied.
All objections to the Magistrate's Decision must be filed with the
Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of the filling of this Decision.
If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
objections not later than ten (10) days after the first objections are
filed. The filing of timely objections shall operate as an automatic stay
of execution of the judgment. A party shall not assign as error on appeal,
the Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the
party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as
required by Civ. R. 53(E)3.


(Signed) Richard A. Kray
Magistrate

11/18/03